1. ' This revision application is filed on behalf of applicant Malik Qasim Ali son of Qasim Ali Banday Ali who is aggrieved by the order dated 20-7-1992 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, South Karachi in Criminal Appeal No,7 of 1992 who by his said judgment set aside the order of the learned S.D.M., Saddar, Karachi and directed retrial of the applicant. Under this criminal revision application the applicant has challenged both the orders of the two Courts below and prayed for his acquittal.
2. ' The facts leading to this criminal revision application are that on 7-3-1992 at about 5-45 p.m. The learned S.D.M., Saddar, Karachi, alongwith a police party visited the shop of the applicant situated on Frere Street, Saddar, Karachi. It appears that the learned S.D.M. Was checking prices under the Price Control Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977 in pursuance of which he visited the shop of the applicant where he found that eggs, cold drinks, garlic etc. Were being sold without price list. As this was in contravention of sections 6 and 7 of the Price Control Act, as such H.C.
3. Muhammad Hayat of Saddar Police Station lodged a written complaint against the applicant on 7- 3-1992 for the said offences. On the same day charge against the applicant was framed under section 7 of the said Act to which the accused pleaded guilty with the result the applicant was convicted and fined Rs,5,000 or in default thereof to undergo S.I. For 100 days.
4. ' The applicant then preferred an appeal against his conviction which came up for hearing before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, South Karachi, being Criminal Appeal No,7 of 1992. The appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the applicant but the case was remanded back for retrial.
5. ' It is the case of the, applicant that the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, South Karachi, while allowing the appeal ought not to have remanded the case for retrial as no offence whatsoever was made out. It is in these circumstances that the present revision application has been filed.
6. ' I have heard Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Khan, Advocate for the applicant but on behalf of the State no one has appeared.
7. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that cognizance was taken by the learned S.D.M. On a complaint made by one H.C. Muhammad Hayat. This complaint is in eight lines which is in printed form in which some spaces were left blank and the same has been subsequently filled up in three different inks. On the same page of the complaint the second para. Deals with the "charge" and below the charge, the third para. Bears the heading "order". The learned counsel submits the complaint, charge and order were all filled up, prepared and announced at the spot on the same day and at the same time, but the perusal of the complaint does not indicate that the applicant had committed any offence. As such, even if the applicant had pleaded guilty, then too the applicant can be held responsible only if he has committed an offence.
8. ' I have carefully applied my mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and I have also considered the points raised by the learned counsel. I have also perused the R&P which was summoned in order to verify the points raised by the learned counsel. The R&P is before me and I have noticed that the complaint, charge and order all have been passed on the same day i,e. 7-3- 1992. The same also appears to be a typed form in one single page. It has been divided into three portions. First portion is the complaint in which the name, address and details of offence were blanks which have been filled up subsequently. The name of the complainant H.C. Muhammad Hayat has been written in black ink, his address is written in the blue ink, the date of the complaint is in a light blue colour while the rest of the blanks are in dark blue colour. The second portion is the charge framed under section 6 read with section 7 of the said Act. Section 6 of the said Act provides fixation of specific maximum prices of essential commodities and different prices either by the Federal Government or the Controller-General and if a violation of this section is detected, it is made punishable under section 7. In the present case no price has been given in the complaint to show at what price the applicant was selling the commodities mentioned in the complaint or what was the fixed price. In the absence of price list as aforesaid no offence can be established against an individual. The same illegality is also noticed in the charge as no fixed price or selling price is mentioned. Furthermore in charge it is also not mentioned as if such a fixed price list was notified or not. In these circumstances the learned S.D.M. Wrongly convicted the applicant.
9. ' In the above circumstances the applicant had rightly preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Judge had also rightly allowed the appeal but in my humble view retrial of the applicant should not have been ordered by the appellate Court. The appellate Court in its judgment, dated 20-7-1992 has also made some important observations which are reproduced as under:-- "In this matter, the learned S.D.M. Failed to comply with the mandatory provision of section 243 read with section 222, Cr.P.C. Not only this but, even the date of framing of the charge is missing with the date of order. Besides the diary sheet has also not been maintained."
10. ' It may be noted that the diary sheet for 7-3-1992 was not maintained. It is only after the case was remanded back to the learned S.D.M. By the Sessions Court that the learned S.D.M. Started maintaining the diary. Be that as it may on the bare reading of the complaint no offence was made out against the applicant, as such, I am of the considered view that the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, South, Karachi erred in remanding the case for retrial.
11. ' In view of my above discussion I convert this revision application into one under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. And having formed an opinion that no offence is made out against the applicant as such the proceedings pending against the applicant, if allowed to continue, will be an abuse of the process of Court. Accordingly I allow this application and direct that the proceedings pending against the applicant in the Court of S.D.M., Saddar, Karachi is hereby quashed. If the fine of R&.5,000 has been deposited by the applicant, the same is to be refunded to him forthwith.